Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) for gaming disorder is a structured psychological treatment that helps people regain control over gaming, address the situations and beliefs that maintain harmful play, rebuild neglected areas of life, and develop a durable plan for handling urges and setbacks. Controlled trials and systematic reviews indicate that CBT can reduce gaming-disorder symptoms, although confidence in the size and durability of its effects remains limited by inconsistent diagnostic methods, varied treatment protocols, high study heterogeneity, and short follow-up. Treatment targets the clinically important consequences of gaming as well as the behavior itself. World Health Organization, 2020; Stevens et al., 2019; Harpas et al., 2025.
What CBT for Gaming Disorder Means
CBT for gaming disorder combines cognitive interventions, which examine interpretations, expectations, and rigid rules about play, with behavioral interventions, which change routines, cues, reinforcement patterns, and responses to distress. The therapist and client develop a shared formulation of why gaming has become difficult to control in that particular life. Sessions typically involve reviewing recent behavior, testing assumptions, practicing skills, and evaluating changes in daily functioning. Treatment can take individual, group, or mixed formats, and may involve caregivers when clinically appropriate.
Gaming is embedded in recreation, friendships, identity, competitive achievement, and online communities. An effective formulation must therefore examine what a person gains from playing and what they have lost as harmful gaming escalates. The clinical task is to restore agency over choices and functioning, preserve meaningful nonharmful activities, and address distress that may otherwise drive renewed excessive play. Uniform instructions to stop gaming do not capture the range of patient goals, developmental circumstances, or clinical presentations.
CBT approaches are adaptations of established psychological methods, but the evidence for a particular gaming-disorder protocol must be assessed on its own merits. A 2026 systematic review and international expert-panel evaluation identified 28 studies reporting 22 CBT interventions and documented considerable variation in the techniques included in treatment manuals. Emotion-regulation skills appeared in 21 of the 22 interventions, psychoeducation in 20, and cognitive restructuring in 19. These frequencies describe clinical practices, not evidence that any single component independently caused improvement. Radunz et al., 2026.
Clinical Diagnosis, Problematic Gaming, and Treatment Eligibility
ICD-11 gaming disorder
In ICD-11, gaming disorder is characterized by impaired control over gaming, increasing priority given to gaming over other interests and daily activities, and continuation or escalation despite negative consequences. The pattern must produce significant impairment in personal, family, social, educational, occupational, or other important functioning. Ordinarily, the pattern is evident for at least 12 months, although the diagnostic guidance allows clinical judgment about severity and duration. Both online and offline gaming can be involved. World Health Organization, 2020; World Health Organization, 2024.
The American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5-TR retains Internet Gaming Disorder as a condition for further study rather than a fully established DSM diagnosis. The DSM research construct and ICD-11 gaming disorder overlap but are not identical in status or criteria. Studies commonly pool participants assessed under different systems, or use symptom questionnaires without confirming ICD-11 impairment requirements. These differences matter when interpreting treatment outcomes, prevalence, and who may benefit from a given intervention.
Intensive gaming versus impairment
Long sessions, competitive involvement, professional esports practice, and enthusiasm for games can coexist with healthy functioning. Clinical concern increases when attempts to limit gaming repeatedly fail and play continues despite serious consequences, such as disrupted schooling, missed work, strained relationships, persistent sleep deprivation, or withdrawal from personally valued activities. Time spent gaming is useful contextual information but is neither a stand-alone diagnostic test nor a sufficient treatment target.
Problematic gaming describes risky or harmful patterns that may fall short of a disorder. People with such patterns may still benefit from brief behavioral help, psychoeducation, family discussions, or targeted counseling. A formal diagnosis requires a fuller clinical evaluation of impairment, course, differential explanations, and co-occurring conditions. A high score on a screening questionnaire indicates a reason to investigate, rather than proving a disorder.
Why CBT Targets Gaming Patterns
Reward learning and the attraction of games
Games supply rapid feedback, achievable goals, intermittent rewards, social recognition, challenge, and a sense of progress. Reinforcement learning helps explain how repeatedly rewarded behavior becomes automatic in particular environments. A session can be positively reinforced by excitement or social achievement and negatively reinforced when it temporarily reduces anxiety, loneliness, boredom, or painful self-evaluation. Over time, cues such as logging in after school or receiving an invitation from teammates can become powerful triggers for play.
CBT maps the sequence from an antecedent event through thoughts, emotions, bodily reactions, actions, and consequences. A therapist might examine a pattern in which conflict at home produces shame, shame activates the belief that only gaming offers competence, and immediate relief after logging in strengthens the routine. The formulation remains individualized: a similar amount of gaming can be maintained by different processes in different people.
Cognitive expectations and rigid beliefs
Some patients treat gaming as the only reliable source of mastery, friendship, safety, or emotional relief. Others hold all-or-nothing rules such as needing to complete every daily reward, maintain a ranking, repay the time already invested, or remain online whenever teammates request help. These beliefs can magnify urgency and make stopping feel threatening.
Cognitive work examines evidence and alternative interpretations. The aim is to test predictions through lived experience: what actually happens if a player logs out before finishing a task, declines one match, or takes part in a valued offline activity despite anxiety? The therapist helps distinguish realistic responsibilities within a gaming community from expectations that have become incompatible with health and everyday commitments.
Emotion regulation and avoidance
Many problematic gaming patterns are organized around emotion regulation. Gaming may function as an accessible strategy for escaping stress, anger, self-criticism, fear of failure, or social discomfort. Restricting access without replacing that function may produce distress and undermine engagement in treatment. CBT therefore teaches ways to identify and tolerate uncomfortable states, solve practical problems, seek interpersonal support, and engage in rewarding alternative activities.
The prominence of emotion-regulation training in published CBT manuals is consistent with this model, but it does not show that emotion regulation is the unique causal pathway for every patient. Depression, anxiety, trauma-related symptoms, attention problems, environmental stress, family conflict, and loss of routine require assessment in their own right. Radunz et al., 2026.
Environmental cues and persuasive design
Notifications, competitive rankings, time-limited events, social obligations, autoplay-like queues, and recurring rewards can make disengagement more difficult for susceptible users. A behavioral formulation examines exposure to cues, the circumstances of each session, and the immediate consequences of continued play. Techniques may include turning off selected notifications, removing automatic startup cues, changing device placement, scheduling sleep-protective cutoffs, and limiting high-risk access periods.
These changes are practical risk-management tools rather than evidence that a particular game mechanic independently causes a disorder. Product design, personal vulnerability, social context, and preexisting distress often interact. Monetary gambling features and loot boxes require additional assessment when relevant, but CBT for gaming disorder and clinical treatment for gambling disorder retain distinct diagnostic targets.
What Happens During CBT Sessions?
Assessment and a collaborative formulation
Early sessions establish the person's goals, duration and pattern of gaming, activities displaced by play, previous attempts to change, family context, mood, sleep, and any immediate safety concerns. Clinicians may use a structured diagnostic interview and symptom measures alongside a functional assessment. A useful baseline records more than weekly screen time: missed obligations, school or job performance, sleep schedule, conflict, distress, emotional triggers, social participation, and subjective loss of control all matter.
The therapist and client then assemble a working explanation of how the difficulties developed and continue. For example, a person may be gaming after midnight because evening play provides social belonging and postpones anxiety about upcoming tasks. A formulation would address the anxiety, the social function of gaming, sleep disruption, and the difficulty transitioning out of a session. It becomes a hypothesis that is revised as treatment provides new information.
Goals, monitoring, and behavioral experiments
Treatment goals are specific and functionally meaningful. Examples include attending school consistently, completing work assignments, restoring regular sleep, spending time with family or friends, and ending sessions at a planned point. Monitoring may record triggering situations, expected benefits of playing, session start and end, emotions before and after, and the consequences for functioning. A therapist reviews the data collaboratively rather than treating each lapse as a moral failure.
Behavioral experiments test whether feared outcomes actually occur. A player might predict that declining a ranked match will destroy an important friendship. With appropriate preparation, they can test that assumption, observe the response, and develop more flexible ways of maintaining the relationship. Experiments are adapted to age, personal risk, and actual responsibilities.
Cognitive restructuring
Cognitive restructuring examines unhelpful beliefs about achievement, identity, obligations, and relief. It does not require disputing every positive opinion about games. Instead, it asks whether an interpretation is accurate, useful, and consistent with the person's broader commitments. A belief that gaming is the only place to feel competent may be evaluated by deliberately practicing a skill outside gaming and tracking actual progress. A belief that stopping a session is intolerable can be tested with a brief, planned interruption while monitoring distress and subsequent adaptation.
These interventions are especially relevant when thoughts about failing teammates, losing progress, social exclusion, or disappointing others repeatedly override agreed limits. They are less useful if they ignore the person's genuine need for community or the social environment that reinforces play.
Behavioral activation and competing rewards
When a person has gradually abandoned other sources of satisfaction, reduced gaming can initially leave a vacuum. Behavioral activation restores participation in activities that generate mastery, pleasure, connection, movement, or purpose. Plans may include in-person relationships, education, creative projects, exercise, structured leisure, or occupational tasks. The important change is diversification of rewarding experiences, not a requirement to adopt stereotypically healthy hobbies.
Small activities are scheduled at achievable times and evaluated for their actual emotional effects. Early rewards may be less immediate than rewards delivered by games. This asymmetry is part of the treatment problem, so goals are graded and supported rather than framed as tests of willpower.
Urge management, response delay, and coping skills
Urges are often temporary and cue-sensitive. CBT may teach people to pause before logging in, label the urge, notice its rise and fall, practice a grounding exercise, move to an alternative activity, or contact a supportive person. The goal is to strengthen flexibility in responding to urges, including choosing when and whether to play. A planned delay can reveal that the sense of compulsion changes over time.
Problem-solving training addresses obstacles that cannot be solved merely by reducing gaming, such as unfinished assignments, financial dependence, unemployment, or relationship strain. Communication and assertiveness skills can help someone explain new boundaries to teammates, friends, and relatives.
Relapse prevention and long-term follow-up
Later work identifies high-risk periods such as holidays, examinations, emotional crises, major game releases, or return to an old social environment. Patients develop concrete responses for the earliest warning signs: sleep drifting later, neglecting commitments, hiding gaming, increasingly rigid thoughts, or resuming unplanned late-night sessions.
A setback is useful clinical information about an unmet need or an insufficiently practiced skill. The treatment plan is adjusted to strengthen recovery rather than turning one episode into a judgment of permanent failure. Continuing support is particularly relevant because controlled trials frequently track outcomes for months rather than years.
Does CBT for Gaming Disorder Work?
Results from systematic reviews
The 2019 systematic review by Stevens and colleagues pooled 12 independent CBT studies and found improvement in Internet Gaming Disorder symptom measures at post-treatment, alongside improvements in depression and anxiety. Its analysis did not establish a reliable reduction in gaming time, and follow-up results across the assessed outcomes were not statistically significant. Importantly, many pooled contrasts were based on change before versus after treatment, a design that cannot isolate therapy effects as confidently as randomized comparisons. Stevens et al., 2019.
A later review of controlled therapeutic interventions found a modest overall effect and flagged moderate or higher risk of bias in most included studies as well as likely small-study or publication bias. Those concerns mean that a collection of positive outcomes cannot automatically be treated as definitive evidence of a large benefit under routine clinical conditions. Danielsen et al., 2024.
A 2025 meta-analysis of 21 controlled gaming-disorder treatment studies covering 1,360 participants reported reductions in symptom severity and gaming time after intervention, with some improvements still present at approximately 90 days. The interventions included CBT and several other approaches. The pooled effects therefore characterize the treatment literature more broadly, not the isolated effect of CBT. Between-study heterogeneity was substantial, and the authors emphasized the need for larger trials, consistent diagnostics, and longer follow-up. Harpas et al., 2025.
Another 2025 systematic review of 18 randomized controlled trials, involving 1,950 participants, found improvement with nonpharmacological interventions and reported particularly strong effects in its CBT subgroup. However, the overall heterogeneity was very high, limiting confidence in a single expected benefit across populations and settings. Ock et al., 2025.
A 2025 review focused on CBT also reported favorable reductions in addictive symptom measures compared with control conditions while acknowledging heterogeneity in the underlying studies. The convergence of these reviews supports offering structured psychological care while identifying a clear evidence gap: which patients benefit most from which components, delivered at what intensity, and with what lasting functional gains? Reangsing et al., 2025.
What randomized trials show
One influential multicenter randomized trial in Germany and Austria evaluated a manualized program called Short-Term Treatment for Internet and Computer Game Addiction, or STICA. Among 143 men, 69.4% assigned to CBT met the study's remission criterion compared with 23.9% in a wait-list group at the primary endpoint. The program combined weekly group sessions with individual sessions. This is meaningful randomized evidence for a structured intervention, although the sample was restricted to men, the diagnostic construct covered a broader category of problematic internet activities, the comparison was a wait list, and the longer-term randomized comparison was limited. Wölfling et al., 2019.
The PROTECT cluster randomized trial tested a CBT-based indicated prevention program among 422 at-risk adolescents in school settings. Symptoms decreased more in the intervention group over 12 months than in an assessment-only comparison group, but differences in incidence rates of full-syndrome conditions were not statistically significant. This was a prevention trial involving gaming and unspecified internet-use problems, rather than a direct test of treatment for every adolescent already diagnosed with ICD-11 gaming disorder. Lindenberg et al., 2022.
Together, these trials show why design matters. Randomization improves causal inference about the offered intervention in the study setting; it does not guarantee that a program will work equally well in every population, or that every constituent technique is responsible. Active-treatment comparators, blinded or independent outcome assessment when practical, registered endpoints, adequate retention, and long follow-up are crucial for the next generation of evidence.
Which CBT component is most effective?
The 2026 common-elements review clarified what clinicians tend to include, rather than running a dismantling trial that assigns patients to receive one ingredient at a time. Across 22 CBT programs, the most common practices were emotion-regulation training, psychoeducation, and cognitive restructuring. The review also identified limited use of exposure-oriented techniques and strengths or self-compassion work in published manuals. High frequency should not be interpreted as proof of superior efficacy; low frequency does not demonstrate that a technique is ineffective. Radunz et al., 2026.
A treatment plan is better guided by the individual functional formulation and available clinical expertise than by ranking ingredients from a simple frequency count. A patient whose gaming is closely linked to depressed mood may need behavioral activation and coordinated depression care, whereas someone whose primary difficulty is transition from competitive sessions may benefit more directly from cue management, cognitive flexibility, and planned stopping routines.
How Long Does CBT Take, and What Format Works Best?
Research protocols vary considerably in length, frequency, intensity, age group, and delivery setting. Some interventions are brief school-based groups; others involve multiweek or multimonth individual and group psychotherapy. The STICA trial, for example, used 15 weekly group sessions plus individual contact, whereas other programs use shorter structured modules. There is no universally validated session count for all presentations of ICD-11 gaming disorder. Wölfling et al., 2019; Radunz et al., 2026.
An initial course can be organized around assessment, formulation, behavior change, emotion regulation, cognitive experiments, and relapse prevention. Clinical decisions about continuation depend on symptom change, functional recovery, adherence, comorbidity, family circumstances, and new risks. Some patients require additional support after apparent improvement, especially when academic, social, or occupational losses take time to repair.
Individual CBT permits detailed tailoring and confidential discussion. Group CBT can create opportunities to practice communication, normalize help-seeking, and compare strategies, while also introducing privacy and social-comparison considerations. Hybrid and remote delivery may improve access for some patients, but digital availability alone does not establish clinical equivalence. Comparative studies have yet to define a universally superior format.
Moderation, Abstinence, and Personalized Goals
A central practical question is whether people receiving CBT must quit gaming entirely. Research has not established one universal rule for all patients. Some clinical programs emphasize controlled, functional gaming; others use an initial abstinence period or longer avoidance of specific games or environments. The choice depends on severity, past loss of control, practical feasibility, social roles, and response to structured limits.
A person who can reliably keep gaming within agreed bounds while maintaining school, sleep, employment, and relationships may pursue moderation. A person who repeatedly loses control whenever a particular game is available may require sustained abstinence from that game as part of an individualized treatment plan. The clinical endpoint is stable functioning and meaningful control, not mere conformity to a preferred philosophical attitude toward games.
Goals should also account for games as a source of social participation or accessibility for people with disabilities. Removing play without considering community connection and alternative support may intensify isolation. Collaborative choices and monitored outcomes are more useful than categorical judgments about the moral value of gaming.
Adolescents, Caregivers, and Family-Based Work
Adolescent gaming difficulties often unfold within systems of family expectations, school demands, peer relationships, developmental autonomy, and shifting sleep patterns. Assessment should include the adolescent's perspective as well as observations from caregivers and, where appropriate, school staff. Conflict over devices can be both a consequence of problematic gaming and a maintaining factor for secrecy, avoidance, and escalating arguments.
Caregiver involvement may help develop clear routines, consistent responses, collaborative boundaries, and reinforcement for healthy behavior. Clinicians can teach families to discuss gaming consequences without humiliation or threats, listen to the functions that games serve, and coordinate with school supports. The extent of family participation depends on age, consent, safety, and clinical context. Research has not shown that every family requires an identical parent-training package.
The PROTECT trial demonstrates the potential of a structured school intervention for at-risk adolescents, but its prevention setting should not be confused with specialty psychotherapy for adolescents meeting full diagnostic requirements. Adolescents with severe school refusal, depression, suicidality, aggression, or significant family adversity need an appropriately comprehensive evaluation. Lindenberg et al., 2022.
Adults, Employment, and Social Functioning
Adults may seek care after repeated work absences, loss of productivity, neglected domestic responsibilities, financial strain linked to in-game purchases, or persistent conflict with partners. Treatment planning should examine work schedules, shift patterns, isolation, unemployment, stress, and the availability of alternative meaningful activities. The same behavioral technique may need a different implementation for an unemployed adult than for a full-time student.
For some adults, gaming has become the principal place where they experience competence or belonging. Clinical progress therefore includes restoring confidence in everyday tasks, reconnecting with people outside gaming, improving sleep, and addressing practical barriers to employment or training. Symptom scores are informative, but recovery must be judged against these broader functional outcomes.
Comorbidity and Differential Assessment
Depression, anxiety, ADHD, sleep disturbances, and substance-use problems can co-occur with harmful gaming. Their temporal relationships vary. Some difficulties may increase reliance on gaming for relief; others may be worsened by disrupted routines and persistent impairment. Cross-sectional associations alone cannot settle whether gaming caused a condition or whether preexisting symptoms contributed to excessive play.
Assessment should explore when each difficulty began, which symptoms occur outside gaming, how impairment changes when play is reduced, and what independent care is indicated. ADHD-related difficulties with planning, inhibition, and transitions may require adaptations to scheduling and coping exercises. Autistic individuals may use gaming for meaningful shared interests, predictability, or community; clinicians should assess actual harm and accessibility needs rather than assuming that intense interest establishes pathology.
Bipolar mood episodes can involve increased activity, reduced need for sleep, and marked changes in reward seeking. A sudden change in gaming behavior during mania calls for urgent evaluation of the mood episode. A person who is isolated, hopeless, or thinking about suicide needs an immediate, person-centered safety assessment alongside any plan for gaming reduction. In such circumstances, a gaming-focused protocol is one component of coordinated care rather than the sole clinical response.
How Clinicians Measure Progress
Gaming-disorder symptom questionnaires can help organize baseline assessment and repeated measurement, but scales differ in their diagnostic frameworks and thresholds. Improvement in a questionnaire is more persuasive when it is accompanied by independently observable gains: returning to school, reliable work attendance, improved sleep, reduced conflict, renewed relationships, and decreased distress or loss of control.
Time spent gaming is an imperfect outcome. It can change with school holidays, seasonal work, tournament schedules, social circumstances, or access to devices. A person might reduce gaming hours while remaining preoccupied and impaired; another might continue gaming recreationally with restored balance and functioning. Measurement should therefore use multiple domains and, when feasible, longer follow-up.
Trials should report prespecified primary outcomes, validated assessments, retention, adverse events, comparison conditions, and effects after treatment ends. This is particularly important when interventions are marketed as cures. Current research does not establish a single relapse rate, remission probability, or duration of effect that can be reliably promised to every person receiving CBT.
What If CBT Does Not Produce Enough Improvement?
A limited response calls for reassessing the original formulation and treatment fit. Practical questions include whether sessions address the main maintaining factors, whether a co-occurring disorder requires direct care, whether the person has realistic access to alternative activities, and whether goals were collaboratively chosen. Problems of attendance or therapeutic alliance should be explored as information rather than characterized as unwillingness to recover.
Motivational interviewing, family-based interventions, and other psychological approaches have been studied, sometimes alongside CBT, but comparisons remain too heterogeneous to declare one universally superior alternative. Emerging digital interventions may improve access yet require specific evidence for efficacy, privacy, clinician oversight, and crisis handling. Medication has no established, universally approved gaming-disorder-specific regimen; pharmacotherapy decisions ordinarily relate to independently assessed co-occurring psychiatric conditions or specialist judgment within limited research evidence. Harpas et al., 2025.
When significant deterioration, severe depression, self-harm risk, psychosis, mania, unsafe domestic conditions, or other urgent concerns arise, appropriate clinical or emergency pathways take precedence. A clinician should coordinate care based on the person's actual risks, needs, and local services.
Research Quality, Uncertainty, and Open Scientific Questions
The evidence base for gaming-disorder CBT has advanced from case series and uncontrolled interventions toward randomized trials, treatment-manual comparisons, and updated meta-analyses. At the same time, important challenges remain. Studies may enroll participants identified by broad internet-addiction measures, Internet Gaming Disorder research criteria, or ICD-11 concepts, and the selected participants may differ in severity and impairment. Across studies, symptom scales, outcome time points, therapeutic dose, concurrent treatments, and definitions of response are often inconsistent.
Small samples and publication bias can inflate estimates. Wait-list controls establish a weaker comparative benchmark than credible active treatment. Psychotherapy trials cannot fully blind participants and clinicians, and expectancy effects can influence self-reported symptoms. High between-study heterogeneity means pooled effects describe a distribution of unlike interventions and populations, not a precise forecast for an individual client. Stevens et al., 2019; Harpas et al., 2025; Danielsen et al., 2024.
Key research questions concern whether CBT produces durable improvements in functioning, which mechanisms mediate those changes, how programs should differ by age and comorbidity, what families contribute, and how to compare structured CBT against equally intensive alternative treatments. The 2026 inventory of common practice elements provides a basis for standardizing descriptions of treatment, but dismantling and mechanism-focused trials are needed to determine which elements drive benefit. Radunz et al., 2026.
The strongest scientific interpretation is that structured psychological interventions, including CBT, are reasonable evidence-informed options for clinically significant gaming problems, with meaningful uncertainty about comparative effectiveness and long-term outcomes. Treatment claims should reflect that level of certainty.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CBT the first-choice treatment for gaming disorder?
CBT is among the most studied psychological approaches for gaming disorder and is commonly used in specialized services. Evidence from controlled trials and reviews supports its consideration, but study limitations and differences across healthcare systems prevent a claim that a single CBT manual is definitively best for every patient. Selection requires a qualified assessment of impairment, co-occurring conditions, preferences, and available care. Harpas et al., 2025.
Can a person receive CBT without an official diagnosis?
People can receive behavioral or psychological help for harmful or distressing gaming even when they do not meet the full ICD-11 threshold. The intensity and type of intervention should be matched to the nature of the problem. A screening result is a starting point for assessment, not a diagnosis.
Does CBT require giving up every video game?
Treatment can aim at functional moderation or a period of abstinence, depending on individual risk and repeated responses to limits. The important outcomes are regained control, reduced harm, and improvement in everyday functioning. The specific plan is developed collaboratively and monitored.
Does reducing screen time prove that treatment worked?
Reducing gaming time can be meaningful, especially when it restores sleep, schooling, relationships, and work. Hours alone do not demonstrate recovery or confirm a diagnosis. Clinicians should examine loss of control, the persistence of adverse consequences, distress, and functioning across important life domains.
Can CBT help when someone also has depression or ADHD?
Co-occurring conditions are common reasons to individualize treatment. CBT strategies can be adapted to attention, motivation, planning, and emotion regulation, but clinically significant depression, ADHD, or other disorders may also require their own assessment and treatment. Improvement in gaming measures does not by itself show that a co-occurring diagnosis has resolved.
How can families help without escalating conflict?
Families can support collaborative routines, consistent boundaries, meaningful offline opportunities, and access to appropriate professional assessment. Listening to why gaming matters, attending to sleep and daily functioning, and avoiding humiliating confrontation can help create conditions for change. Severe or escalating conflict warrants direct professional attention.
Related Articles
Cluster Gambling, Gaming and Behavioral Addictions — the scientific chapter explaining the classification, mechanisms, harms, treatment evidence, and public-health context of gambling and gaming disorders.
Phone Addiction: Is Smartphone Addiction a Real Diagnosis? — a separate account of problematic smartphone use and the distinctions between broad digital habits and formally recognized gaming disorder.
Gaming Disorder Treatment: What Research Supports — Examine randomized trials and systematic reviews of gaming disorder interventions, including limitations and longer-term outcomes.
Family Therapy for Gaming Disorder: Evidence and Limitations — Review evidence for family-based gaming disorder interventions, youth care, family conflict, and methodological limitations.
Gaming Disorder Recovery: Triggers, Relapse, and Long-Term Change — Examine sustained recovery from gaming disorder, triggers for renewed impairment, and evidence for ongoing support.
References
Danielsen, P. A., Mentzoni, R. A., and Låg, T. (2024). Treatment effects of therapeutic interventions for gaming disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Addictive Behaviors, 149, 107887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107887
Harpas, I., Stevens, M., Radunz, M., Williamson, P., Hamamura, T., Svendsen, O., and King, D. L. (2025). Treatment of gaming disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research, 354, 116783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2025.116783
Lindenberg, K., Kindt, S., and Szász-Janocha, C. (2022). Effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy–based intervention in preventing gaming disorder and unspecified internet use disorder in adolescents: A cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Network Open, 5(2), e2148995. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.48995
Ock, C.-M., Lee, H.-S., Chae, J., and Kim, H. (2025). Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions on gaming disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Investigation, 22(5), 490–503. https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2024.0358
Radunz, M., Stevens, M. W. R., Behm, S., et al. (2026). Common practice elements of cognitive behavioral therapy for gaming disorder: A systematic review and expert panel evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review, 126, 102740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2026.102740
Reangsing, C., Wongchan, W., Trakooltorwong, P., Thaibandit, J., and Oerther, S. (2025). Effects of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) on addictive symptoms in individuals with internet gaming disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychiatry Research, 348, 116425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2025.116425
Stevens, M. W. R., King, D. L., Dorstyn, D., and Delfabbro, P. H. (2019). Cognitive-behavioral therapy for Internet gaming disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 26(2), 191–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2341
Wölfling, K., Müller, K. W., Dreier, M., et al. (2019). Efficacy of short-term treatment of Internet and computer game addiction: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Psychiatry, 76(10), 1018–1025. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2019.1676
World Health Organization. (2020). Addictive behaviours: Gaming disorder. https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/addictive-behaviours-gaming-disorder
World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263